[OT] Upon watching PJ butcher another's work.

[Assenpfeffer]

Good point, although I think it's that change to the movie's continuity that bothers me. They removed the "additional" caves in order to support Theoden's newly-written weaknesses.

Eh? If there are no additional caves, your case for Theoden's weakness is lessened considerably.

 

[EricNoah]

edit -- ack! it worked! I got drawn in! I'm sorry, very very sorry.

 

[Mulkhoran]

It's funny how all these guys with screen names right from Tolkien "have no axe to grind."

Just saying.

My nick is the name of my first DnD character, and it's a fairly random collection of symbols. But I'm getting the feeling you're not here for any discussion, just to sling flames.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

My nick is the name of my first DnD character, and it's a fairly random collection of symbols. But I'm getting the feeling you're not here for any discussion, just to sling flames.

Um... sorry, chief, but I wasn't responding to you, nor was I talking about you. I was talking about Olorin and Celebrim.

 

[Mulkhoran]

Arguments that Peter Jackson made film 1 a masterpiece and stuck faithfully to the story, and then purposely made film 2 stray just to "get us" are simply ridiculous. You may not like his choices, fine, but he's trying to make Lord of the Rings movies, not create some sort of elaborate trap to damage you emotionally.

I'm not saying it's an emotional trap or any such thing. It's a perfectly legitimate marketing gimmick. Of three movies with a major need to pay off, if you can get all but the most devout purists to love the first, you can get most of them to pay for tickets to the second.

I'm not assigning conspiracy theories, just pointing out what appears to be a pattern. He's said before that the amount of money at stake is key to the film's development.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

I'm not saying it's an emotional trap or any such thing. It's a perfectly legitimate marketing gimmick. Of three movies with a major need to pay off, if you can get all but the most devout purists to love the first, you can get most of them to pay for tickets to the second.

And if film #2 is a big turd, what about film #3?

How'd Highlander 3 do, anyway?

 

[Mulkhoran]

Eh? If there are no additional caves, your case for Theoden's weakness is lessened considerably.

That's kind of my point. They removed the option of him sending his people to safety, in order to contribute to the whole "leading his people to slaughter".

On the other hand, the way Aragorn talks in the movie, he *had* the option of going to fight Saruman, and Aragorn doesn't think he should *go* to Helm's Deep. So regardless of outside book elements, the movie has Aragorn pointing out over and over again that this is a *BAD DECISION*, not something he has to do. Big difference.

 

[EricNoah]

Yep, yep, I reacted hastily and deleted sluggishly.

I can't be convinced of your opinion, so I shouldn't participate in this part of the discussion.

 

[Mulkhoran]

And if film #2 is a big turd, what about film #3?

How'd Highlander 3 do, anyway?

All I'm saying is that if you reign in your personal changes for the first movie, you get more revenue from *two* movies. If you don't, you lose a lot of revenue from the second movie, from people that didn't like the first.

You're all right that this probably isn't happening, but I feel cheated. The first movie sent the message that the story would be treated in a certain way, and it was treated very differently for the second. They're not three standalone movies, nor are they 2 sequels to FotR. They are an ensemble piece, and it's not too much to ask that they work together to set a tone.

 

[Assenpfeffer]

That's kind of my point. They removed the option of him sending his people to safety, in order to contribute to the whole "leading his people to slaughter".

On the other hand, the way Aragorn talks in the movie, he *had* the option of going to fight Saruman, and Aragorn doesn't think he should *go* to Helm's Deep. So regardless of outside book elements, the movie has Aragorn pointing out over and over again that this is a *BAD DECISION*, not something he has to do. Big difference.

Okay, that makes more sense when elaborated upon in that way. I still disagree that this is a crippling flaw in the film in any sense. Remember that the real showcase for Theoden's heroism is when he rides to the rescue (and his own death) at the Pelennor Fields.

And the expanded version may change our perspective on the issue, of course.